A history of racist incidents (and false alarms) in hockey...

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It has been studied and proved wrong : http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2004/02/12/cherry040212.html

Good article. The headline is a bit misleading: "Cherry half right."

Yeah, Cherry was right that Europeans and French Canadians were more likely to wear visors. But so what? He was wrong with the substance of his rant: visor wearers appear to not be more likely to be guilty of stick infractions.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Good article. The headline is a bit misleading: "Cherry half right."

Yeah, Cherry was right that Europeans and French Canadians were more likely to wear visors. But so what? He was wrong with the substance of his rant: visor wearers appear to not be more likely to be guilty of stick infractions.

Yeah, he's half right only if you put equal importance on the two statements, which of course ignores the context of the discussion. He only raises the first point (who wears visors) in order to discuss the second (visor-wearers are reckless). Without the second point, the first is irrelevant.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Good article. The headline is a bit misleading: "Cherry half right."

Yeah, Cherry was right that Europeans and French Canadians were more likely to wear visors. But so what? He was wrong with the substance of his rant: visor wearers appear to not be more likely to be guilty of stick infractions.

Yeah, he's half right only if you put equal importance on the two statements, which of course ignores the context of the discussion. He only raises the first point (who wears visors) in order to discuss the second (visor-wearers are reckless). Without the second point, the first is irrelevant.

Yes, but Don Cherry knows what he is talking about. You don't.

Or at least that is what he would say.

 

[Big Phil]

The Canadians are the worst in this category.

Remember when Canada's C-team would allegedly win gold because of their depth? Turned out the A-team could only finish 7th, but wait that was because they were missing one player

We could look at the best on best winners of tournaments:
1972 Summit: Canada
1976 Canada Cup: Canada
1981 Canada Cup: Russia
1984 Canada Cup: Canada
1987 Canada Cup: Canada
1991 Canada Cup: Canada
1996 World Cup: USA
1998 Olympics: Czech
2002 Olympics: Canada
2004 World Cup: Canada
2006 Olympics: Sweden
2010 Olympics: Canada

8 out of 12 times Canada has won a major international tournament. Once with the Russians. Granted they were close many times (1984, 1987, 1998) but Canada offsets that right there (1996, 1998). So at the top level there have been far more times when Canada had a team that drastically underacheived, maybe only one time? 2006? We can name more with Russia, just saying.

So again, this is an example of why I don't think its wrong to suggest Canadians have that extra gear in the heart and passion department

 

[seventieslord]

We could look at the best on best winners of tournaments:
1972 Summit: Canada
1976 Canada Cup: Canada
1981 Canada Cup: Russia
1984 Canada Cup: Canada
1987 Canada Cup: Canada
1991 Canada Cup: Canada
1996 World Cup: USA
1998 Olympics: Czech
2002 Olympics: Canada
2004 World Cup: Canada
2006 Olympics: Sweden
2010 Olympics: Canada

8 out of 12 times Canada has won a major international tournament. Once with the Russians. Granted they were close many times (1984, 1987, 1998) but Canada offsets that right there (1996, 1998). So at the top level there have been far more times when Canada had a team that drastically underacheived, maybe only one time? 2006? We can name more with Russia, just saying.

So again, this is an example of why I don't think its wrong to suggest Canadians have that extra gear in the heart and passion department

That proves nothing about heart and passion, and really just proves that Canada has always had the best national team, the reason isn't clear based on this.

anyway, I was going to respond to jekoh a few days back but decided not to. Canada has always been the favourite on a national level, and when they lose it is typically a function of a short tournament and the fact that anything can happen in one. Replay 1996, 1998, 2006 a hundred times and Canada wins those tournaments more often than other teams.

But you don't really need to do that either, do you? The facts are right there. Eight of twelve tournaments, and two runners-up. No other country has a record close to this. No one else has won more than once! I love how the canada haters point to 2006 as though it proves whatever silly case they think they have.

 

[nudie]

I remember I saw some interview in Swedish media with Iginla, where he said that when he was young, some people (cant remember exactly who) said that he never would become anything in hockey because he was black.

Guess we saw how that turned out

 

[Iain Fyffe]

So again, this is an example of why I don't think its wrong to suggest Canadians have that extra gear in the heart and passion department

As seventieslord said, this proves absolutely nothing about heart or whatever, because if Canada just plain has the best team, then they're expected to win the tournament. If, for example, Canada was the favourite in each of these tournaments, the fact that other teams sometimes won could be evidence that the other teams have more heart. By default I'd attribute it to the variation inherent in short tournaments, but other are inclined to ascribe deficiencies in mental fortitude to such things.

 

[Big Phil]

I remember I saw some interview in Swedish media with Iginla, where he said that when he was young, some people (cant remember exactly who) said that he never would become anything in hockey because he was black.

Guess we saw how that turned out

Maybe he can bring that person up at his Hall of Fame induction speech.

That proves nothing about heart and passion, and really just proves that Canada has always had the best national team, the reason isn't clear based on this.

anyway, I was going to respond to jekoh a few days back but decided not to. Canada has always been the favourite on a national level, and when they lose it is typically a function of a short tournament and the fact that anything can happen in one. Replay 1996, 1998, 2006 a hundred times and Canada wins those tournaments more often than other teams.

But you don't really need to do that either, do you? The facts are right there. Eight of twelve tournaments, and two runners-up. No other country has a record close to this. No one else has won more than once! I love how the canada haters point to 2006 as though it proves whatever silly case they think they have.

Well then again, does it or doesn't it? Were the Soviets really that bad in 1972? I didn't think so but winning three times on Moscow soil proved that the Canadians had heart. Now yes, Canada was a bit better in 1972, but to come back in that 8th game in the third period, man, that's Canadian heart no matter how you slice it.

1984? 1987? Those were pure examples of them beating a team with loads of talent and you have to point to the heart of a Canadian team in some instances. John Tonelli in 1984? We don't win against the Russians without him. Or how about Dale Hawerchuk in 1987? Not sure we win without him either in the 3rd game, not to mention Sutter, Tocchet and the other heart and soul guys.

Then there's the World Junior tournament. Again, not to say the Russians haven't had some moments as well because they have. 2011 is a good example. But how many times has that extra "never say quit attitude" propelled them to victory? You can't ignore the results completely

 

[seventieslord]

Maybe he can bring that person up at his Hall of Fame induction speech.



Well then again, does it or doesn't it? Were the Soviets really that bad in 1972? I didn't think so but winning three times on Moscow soil proved that the Canadians had heart. Now yes, Canada was a bit better in 1972, but to come back in that 8th game in the third period, man, that's Canadian heart no matter how you slice it.

1984? 1987? Those were pure examples of them beating a team with loads of talent and you have to point to the heart of a Canadian team in some instances. John Tonelli in 1984? We don't win against the Russians without him. Or how about Dale Hawerchuk in 1987? Not sure we win without him either in the 3rd game, not to mention Sutter, Tocchet and the other heart and soul guys.

Then there's the World Junior tournament. Again, not to say the Russians haven't had some moments as well because they have. 2011 is a good example. But how many times has that extra "never say quit attitude" propelled them to victory? You can't ignore the results completely

quick scans through those lineups with player-to-player comparisons show that Canada was clearly better and was expected to win every time.

Canada's national team is the best. That's all you proved. They may have more heart and desire, but this doesn't prove it.

 

[Hanji]

Maybe he can bring that person up at his Hall of Fame induction speech.



Well then again, does it or doesn't it? Were the Soviets really that bad in 1972? I didn't think so but winning three times on Moscow soil proved that the Canadians had heart. Now yes, Canada was a bit better in 1972, but to come back in that 8th game in the third period, man, that's Canadian heart no matter how you slice it.

1984? 1987? Those were pure examples of them beating a team with loads of talent and you have to point to the heart of a Canadian team in some instances. John Tonelli in 1984? We don't win against the Russians without him. Or how about Dale Hawerchuk in 1987? Not sure we win without him either in the 3rd game, not to mention Sutter, Tocchet and the other heart and soul guys.

Then there's the World Junior tournament. Again, not to say the Russians haven't had some moments as well because they have. 2011 is a good example. But how many times has that extra "never say quit attitude" propelled them to victory? You can't ignore the results completely

It could be argued that a small country like Slovakia must play with more heart just to be able to compete with Canada.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

But how many times has that extra "never say quit attitude" propelled them to victory?

No one has any idea. Or at the very least, you've presented not the slightest bit of evidence that it's happened even once. Not that I expect you to, since I don't think you can prove such a thing. But making such a positive statement about something you can't prove is problematic by itself.

Canada's national team is the best. That's all you proved. They may have more heart and desire, but this doesn't prove it.

Precisely.

 

[overpass]

For a measure of "heart" why not look at performance in elimination games vs non-elimination games for Canada and other teams?

 

[jekoh]

We could look at the best on best winners of tournaments:
1972 Summit: Canada

There's no way the 1972 Series is any more of a best on best than the 1972 world championships, or the 1972 olympics.

Once with the Russians. Granted they were close many times (1984, 1987, 1998) but Canada offsets that right there (1996, 1998).

Canada has been very successful no doubt, but a 4th place in 1998 is "close"? I don't think it is to most people, but surely if it is then you should also count 2002 and 2006 for Russia.

So at the top level there have been far more times when Canada had a team that drastically underacheived, maybe only one time? 2006? We can name more with Russia, just saying.

Again, if a 4th place is good enough by Canadian standards, when exactly did Russia "underachieve" outside of 2010?

 

[Thumper17]

I haven't browsed the entire topic yet, but is their any reference to anythign regarding Theo Fleury? He is part native, and I read his book and I cant recall any mention of racial incidents regarding him.

I'm sure there must have been one somewhere down the line.

Also:

If they dont come home with Gold, I'm dissapointed.

 

[jekoh]

It could be argued that a small country like Slovakia must play with more heart just to be able to compete with Canada.

Czechia in 1998 who won it all with a team that wasn't supposed to even medal is another example of a team usually argued to have "overachieved".

 

[Axxellien]

WW1 nonsense:

...When WW2 erupted, the Bruins made a half hearted attempt to change the KRAUT Line moniker...the Buddy line..never stuck..When the line returned from WW2, They resumed as before...WW1 had it`s share of absurdities: Sauerkraut became ``Liberty Cabbage`` Dashunds were transformed into ```Liberty Pups``..Even German measles were now You guessed it: ``LIBERTY measles!!!``..can You beat that?? LOLOL

 

[Axxellien]

The UKE Line:

..I tried on 2 separate occasions to start a Wikipedia page on Boston`s UKE Line, just a stub, nothing fancy..Page was eradicated both times with no clear explanation?? i mentioned the KRAUT line reference & existing page & got no reply!!...The UKE Line is cited in many instances on Wiki. when dealing with the Boston Bruins!!!??

 

[Axxellien]

..Don ``Mary`` McKenney!??

..In the late 1950s, a certain rowdy element of the ``Gallery Gods`` section of the Boston Garden began yelling ``MARY`` at Star centre Don ``Slip`` McKenney for His supposed lack of physical play & His smooth elegant style..His moniker since youth, ``Slip`` stood for slippery, because of his fast hard to check, evasive presence, with an obvious, if co-incidental inference to the ladies undergarment..To His credit, Don never said anything, shrugged it off..the same Don Mckenney whose style so closely resembled the Swedish mode!!...BTW, Don Cherry who had played with McKenney in Barrie & Hershey and much later briefly, in Rochester mentions this incident in his bio. ``GRAPES`` Sour grapes and a jealous jab by a slow footed defenseman who never cracked the NHL, perhaps?? ..The same Cherry who later lavishly praised Jean Ratelle when He won the Lady Byng??!..

Where would ``Mary`` McKenney appear on the sexist/racist radar?

 

[Killion]

...When WW2 erupted, the Bruins made a half hearted attempt to change the KRAUT Line moniker...the Buddy line..never stuck..When the line returned from WW2, They resumed as before...WW1 had it`s share of absurdities: Sauerkraut became ``Liberty Cabbage`` Dashunds were transformed into ```Liberty Pups``..Even German measles were now You guessed it: ``LIBERTY measles!!!``..can You beat that?? LOLOL

Yepp. If their was an award for "Best Sense of Humor" in the NHL the Broons' win that one hands down. The Merry Tricksters. Must be the Irish in them. Who could ever forget Johnny Albert "Pie" Bronco McKenzies "Choke Dance" at MSG in New York after Boston had eliminated the Rangers in 6 games in 73?. Skates out to center ice, raises one arm in a Statue of Liberty pose, places the other hand around his neck then jumps up & down while circling like a man who'd just fallen through a trap door struggling on the gibbet.

 

[Axxellien]

Bruins:

..Colourful They are!.lol..Old School...Not the mighty ducks!! lol

 

[Big Phil]

quick scans through those lineups with player-to-player comparisons show that Canada was clearly better and was expected to win every time.

Canada's national team is the best. That's all you proved. They may have more heart and desire, but this doesn't prove it.

We disagree on this issue.

However, Canada on PAPER was supposed to steamroll the Soviets. This didn't happen. Why? Because we knew nothing about them at all. They said Tretiak couldn't stop a beach ball. After 8 games it was very clear that another country could play our game close to our level. They certainly weren't far and wide better. Maybe with Orr and Hull in the mix the results are 6-2 over 8 games but that wasn't the case.

No one has any idea. Or at the very least, you've presented not the slightest bit of evidence that it's happened even once. Not that I expect you to, since I don't think you can prove such a thing. But making such a positive statement about something you can't prove is problematic by itself.

Come on now, the 1972 Summit Series? Game 6 and 8 especially. You have to be doing something right if you have 31 penalty minutes to your opponent's 4 and still win 3-2 with a referee that has been proven over time that was trying to throw the game.

Game 8? Down 5-3 going into the third period. You can't see how winning the game 6-5 takes heart? There was everything going against them in that period. Even when they tied the game they still weren't awarded the goal right away. Then Eagleson is taken off by the Russian guards and the Canadian players come over and free him with, as Esposito put it: "Hockey sticks compared to their guns." I guess 39 years have gone by and we've forgotten just how much of a war that game really was.

But don't believe me, believe Gary Bergman who said this during the documentary "September 1972":

"there have been more talented teams since then but boy, that team had a lot of heart."

How about the countless World Junior wins? The 1984 Canada Cup semi final? The comeback in the deciding game in the 1987 Canada Cup? Or why not just roll the names in recent NHL history off of your tongue when you describe heart and soul guys and see who you come up with.

Yes, you will find some non-Canadians, but are there really that many that you would put in Yzerman's category (a la 2002) for instance?

I don't think it is inaccurate, or prejudice to suggest that the players with the most heart are generally from the Great White North

Canada has been very successful no doubt, but a 4th place in 1998 is "close"? I don't think it is to most people, but surely if it is then you should also count 2002 and 2006 for Russia.

Well they got into a shootout in the semi final and hit the post. Not to mention they outplayed the Czechs considerably in the overtime period. Yeah, I'd say if inches decided a team being eliminated then it could be classified as close. Reichel's goal against Roy went off the inside of the post while Lindros' went off the outside of the post and out.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Come on now, the 1972 Summit Series? Game 6 and 8 especially. You have to be doing something right if you have 31 penalty minutes to your opponent's 4 and still win 3-2 with a referee that has been proven over time that was trying to throw the game.

"Doing something right." This is an argument from ignorance, pure and simple. I don't know how they won, therefore they won because they had more heart [or whatever pet theory is preferred].

 

[Hanji]

We disagree on this issue.

However, Canada on PAPER was supposed to steamroll the Soviets. This didn't happen. Why? Because we knew nothing about them at all. They said Tretiak couldn't stop a beach ball. After 8 games it was very clear that another country could play our game close to our level. They certainly weren't far and wide better. Maybe with Orr and Hull in the mix the results are 6-2 over 8 games but that wasn't the case.



Come on now, the 1972 Summit Series? Game 6 and 8 especially. You have to be doing something right if you have 31 penalty minutes to your opponent's 4 and still win 3-2 with a referee that has been proven over time that was trying to throw the game.

Game 8? Down 5-3 going into the third period. You can't see how winning the game 6-5 takes heart? There was everything going against them in that period. Even when they tied the game they still weren't awarded the goal right away. Then Eagleson is taken off by the Russian guards and the Canadian players come over and free him with, as Esposito put it: "Hockey sticks compared to their guns." I guess 39 years have gone by and we've forgotten just how much of a war that game really was.

But don't believe me, believe Gary Bergman who said this during the documentary "September 1972":

"there have been more talented teams since then but boy, that team had a lot of heart."

You're selective in your examples.

Where was this Canadian heart early in the series?
Playing with heart entails playing every shift like it's your last. It means preparing yourself to be the best no matter the opponent. It means not having to intentionally injure an opponent. It means playing above and beyond your talent level.

Perhaps Canada was forced to come from behind against a lesser team because of a lacklustre effort throughout a good portion of the series.
Perhaps it was the slightly less talented Soviets who played, start to finish, with more heart than the Canadians.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

If you read all of my posts, you would see that I do claim there are some good ones out there. But from a percentage standpoint, Canadians step up their game much better when the chips are down over Russians. Malkin had that great run in 2009 and Ovechkin has been..............good but not legendary, however I don't really blame him for the Caps woes. I blame another Russian - Semin.

Call it a perception that people have, but there have been a lot of Alexei Yashin's out there in Russia. Not to mention the last time the Russians won at the top level internationally was 1981. How many times have we heard how talented a Russian team is only to see them falter?

Again, this isn't to downgrade Russians or Europeans at all. I have seen a lot of hockey in my lifetime and can check some Euro names who had/have heart and cared about winning. Unfortunatel when you look at percentages a Canadian historically has given his team better results

Where does that leave guys like Joe Thornton though? There are plenty of others like him out there that get ignored when they struggle.

 

[VMBM]

We disagree on this issue.

However, Canada on PAPER was supposed to steamroll the Soviets. This didn't happen. Why? Because we knew nothing about them at all. They said Tretiak couldn't stop a beach ball. After 8 games it was very clear that another country could play our game close to our level. They certainly weren't far and wide better. Maybe with Orr and Hull in the mix the results are 6-2 over 8 games but that wasn't the case.

Also, maybe if the Canadians don't make the best Russian player ineffective by using a cheap shot, the result would have been 6-1-1 for the Soviets? Maybe, maybe not.

I'd say that Canada's advantage in some areas (physicality, defensive play) was pretty big, but also, something else - besides heart - was needed for the victory too.

Come on now, the 1972 Summit Series? Game 6 and 8 especially. You have to be doing something right if you have 31 penalty minutes to your opponent's 4 and still win 3-2 with a referee that has been proven over time that was trying to throw the game.

When has this been "proven" exactly? I agree that the reffing was terrible, but where's the proof? After all, Canadians always insist that there was nothing wrong with Don Koharski in 1987...

You'd think that if they were bribed, Kompalla or Baader would have allowed the goal scored by Kharlamov in the 2nd period, or would have thrown Bobby Clarke out of the game after what he did, instead of 2 minutes for the slash and 10 minute misconduct.